Can someone redpill me on the out-of-Africa thing? Did human

The Holy White Race is from Atlantis.

>>2174042
> Did human beings really come from Africa?
Well seing that our closest evolutionary relative (chimpanzee and gorilla) are in Africa, it's higly probable that humans come from Africa.

>why are the first known civilizations in the Middle East
I don't know, maybe because of the climate. Human were already out of Africa since a good time before Sumer (Sumer earliest texts date back from 3000 BC, Lascaux painting are 17 000 years old)

>>2174056

Himmler, please go

Humans evolved in Africa and migrated to different parts of the world.

The first civilizations we know of, namely the Egyptian and Sumerian are in, and pretty close to Africa, respectively.

The continent of Atlantis was an island
Which lay before the great flood
In the area we now call the Atlantic Ocean.
So great an area of land, that from her western shores
Those beautiful sailors journeyed
To the South and the North Americas with ease,
In their ships with painted sails.
To the East Africa was a neighbour, across a short strait of sea miles.
The great Egyptian age is but a remnant of The Atlantian culture.
The antediluvian kings colonised the world
All the Gods who play in the mythological dramas
In all legends from all lands were from fair Atlantis.
Knowing her fate, Atlantis sent out ships to all corners of the Earth.
On board were the Twelve:
The poet, the physician, the farmer, the scientist,
The magician and the other so-called Gods of our legends.
Though Gods they were -
And as the elders of our time choose to remain blind
Let us rejoice and let us sing and dance and ring in the new
Hail Atlantis!

>>2174104
humans were already all over the world when those civilizations formed, and they formed by people who had left for india/asia then looped back around


also "out of Africa" is bunk because we have proof now that the migrations happened many thousands of years before the supposed timespan and in many waves.

so far as civilization is concerned, out of India is more accurate.

>>2174114
>humans were already all over the world when those civilizations formed

I know that. But it shouldn't surprise you that the first places where civilization emerge, coincidentally is also the same place where an animal evolved.

Now, granted, this is my own conjecture, but it doesn't seem implausible.

People like Richard Dawkins has said he believes we started emigrating out of Africa 30000 years ago, which seems to me to be enough time for humans to evolve phenotypic variation, such as skin and hair color differences.

>>2174042
This theory has not strong proofs. Europe, Asia, Americas - all these places were convenient for monkeys, which types could be sources of several races.

>>2174042
>Did human beings really come from Africa?
yes

>If that's the case, why are the first known civilizations in the Middle East?
Because by the time the climate was ripe for agriculture humans had already spread all over the globe.

>>2174111
everytime i see this kind of paragraph format it discourages me to read it.

get fucked

>>2174132
It's song lyrics you dumb redditor

>>2174127
>>2174114
>/his/ is THIS uneducated. I blame /pol/.

>>2174135
you don't say, gaylord.
thanks for the advice, never do it again. Gotcha pal? ;)

>>2174127
And why would these be "races" rather than "species" if they had evolved independently? Why are we able to interbreed and why do we have less genetic diversity than other apes that didn't spread as far and wide as us?

>>2174137
I think it's time for you to go back to /r/foodporn

>>2174042
It isn't really correct to say that humans came from Africa. Yes, the first bipedal hominids came from African and the modern day expression of human beings came from the bipedal hominids but it's much more nuanced than a linear 1:1 evolution. It would be like saying sharks came from plankton

>>2174042
>Can someone redpill me on the out-of-Africa thing? Did human beings really come from Africa?
It is true. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence with the earliest remains of modern humans following the migration pattern.
>If that's the case, why are the first known civilizations in the Middle East?
Civilization arose 10000s of years after humans migrated out of africa and in regions best suited to early agriculture like flood plains, it is almost completely unrelated to migration patterns.

Personally I believe humanity if far older than what we believe and if we did come out of Africa, it was so fucking long ago and in such a different context that to implies we even have any kind of lineage that can be traced back to this land is utterly pointless, as we know absolutely nothing of who they were, why they left and how they saw the world.

Also the ''first'' known civilisation isn't the de-facto first civilization of humanity, its just the one that we did discover at least to the extant that we could define what the culture was about, we surely found a-plenty of artifacts far older than these civilization and showed sign of certain wisdom/culture (such as the respect of the deads or whatnot) but it just didn't offer enough as to make it fact that it has verifiable origin. Imo I believe one of the earliest were proto-indus civilisations that existed along the indian ocean coast prior to the ice age, for there were underwater cities found along the coast, under a certain depth that would implies that they were thriving prior to the rise of the ocean during the end of the last/current Ice Age. Given the estimated age of Yoga (the actual source of spirituality in that area, while Hinduism is said to be about 7 thousand year old, more or less and the result of a centralization in spiritual belief among the numerous Indian tribes, Yoga have been found to have origin as far as 20 thousand years ago if we believe the proto-indus wall paintings and the estimation of their age.) it isn't that much of a stretch to think so, I believe.

>>2174143
>It would be like saying sharks came from plankton

No, it wouldn't.

>>2174140
Because terms "race", "type", "species" are very fluent and not strictly related with interbreed. Tiger and lion can have kid, some similar species cant, etc.
Current similarity of all humans was reached after European colonisation, its not obvious about previous epoch.

>>2174166
t. Patel Srinivasalampatapetlon

>>2174143
>It would be like saying sharks came from plankton
lol wtf

>>2174042
>Did human beings really come from Africa?
Yes, homo sapiens are originally from Africa and migrated to everywhere from there. That's what the paleontologists say.

>>2174142
smart comeback.
I think it's time for you to go back to be someone's pet, you retard.

>>2174142
I think it's time you think it's time

If I remembered right the oldest pottery that we have found is from China. So it would make since for China to have been one of the oldest civilizations but the human is from Africa.

how the fuck did people get to the Americas? Is muh ice bridge a real thing?

File: Early-human-migration-map.png (1MB, 1406x786px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1406x786px

>>2174626

>>2174626
>>2174664
Check the legend for "extent of land areas". There was a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska 20,000 years ago. Land, not ice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas

Do you realize these names (Asia, Africa, China, even Sumer) did not exist in the time of which you speak.
It is so unlearned--ignorant and arrogant--to speak of one current culture, country or religion as original.

>>2174129
/thread

>>2174042
OoA
>our first confirmable ancestors lived in central/ eastern Africa (much more forested at the time) around 7mya. These were still tree dwelling
>for some reason (causes for bipedalism is another green text altogether) Australopithecines decent from the trees around 3-4mya. They were bipedal and produced very rudimentary stone tools. Lucy is one of these, though she's more like a cousin than a direct ancestor
>Homo Habilis was our first clear one of those, they show up around 2mya and are followed by H. Erectus. These fuckers leave Africa somewhere between 1200-800kya, spread from Portugal to the yellow sea, and eventually develop into H. Neanderthalensis and other hominids that we'd come into contact with later
(Erectus has many names, if I don't mention it here, and you're unsure of some genus of Homo, it's probably some form of Erectus)
>back in Africa H. Sapiens starts appearing around 350kya, and totally anatomicaly modern humans are first seen c 125kya
>we know of at least one failed migration (c 95kya, Shkul cave, Israel) but genetic mapping points to a group, maybe as small as 200, leaving across the Bab el Mandeb straits around 70kya. If you're not African (sans Madagascar, cool story), they were your ancestors

The fossil record states that yes, out of Africa is correct.

Firstly, the first "known" civilization is not the first civilization. If that isn't obvious to you, perhaps you should know that homo sapiens were around long, long, long before civilization appeared.

>>2174042
>>2174979
And as for civilization, we're basically looking at such vast periods of time here that any geographical proximity is pretty much moot. If we take "civilization" to mean a sedentary formalised state with agriculture and writing, then by the time Sumer got around to that, people had already settled everywhere on the planet they would go, except some pacific islands, and been there for at least 5000 years.

File: IMG_0148.jpg (96KB, 579x616px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 579x616px

No

The overwhelming consensus of historians, archaeologists, biologists, and common sense is wrong

The jews used their magic brainwaves to convince us we're the same species

I have lots of blogposts from conspiracy websites as proof

>>2174042
Humans began in Africa but some humans left Africa and became the only civilized humans in existence while the african natives remained primitive feral hunter gatherer shit to this day.

File: a747ef9231a54e139c5dc5c65679fe38.jpg (2MB, 2812x1873px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2812x1873px

"Humans" left Africa as homo ergaster (pic), so that much for it. Since then we evolved separately. Ergaser wasn't even full erect yet btw.

Answer this.
If humans didn't originally evolve in Africa, why then is the genetic diversity greater in Africa than anywhere else in the world? Doesn't that strongly indicate humanity started out here and then had a part of its population leave?

>>2175058
No humans began in Sub Saharan Africa, Ergaster also began in Africa but much earlier as literally every hominid began in Africa at first because Africa is the origin of us walking bipedal apes in the first place.

>>2175058
You sir are operating at so many different levels of wrong that I don't know where to begin. I think the worst though is trying to pic related something that's been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years, and trying to use that (stil) pic as proof of their walking gait. I mean god damn it, apply yourself nigger. I'm fine with people like >>2175047, you can think that Africans are uncultured savages if that helps you get through your day, but multi regionalism, just no man

>>2175058
Shouldn't such an early isolation have rendered it impossible for humans of different races to breed with each other?

>>2175047
Only Khoisan and pygmies remained mostly foragers

>>2174146
/Thread

>>2175123
They didnt breed with eachother, as there are only five human races in total on earth.

>>2175156
Yeah, and after more than a million years of separate evolution we can still interbreed with other human races this day.

>>2174042
There are several species of human being, we are the only one currently alive atm, Homo sapiens, and developed in Africa then spread around the world.
Other species of humans such as homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis developed in different areas of the world.

Civilisations first developed in the Middle East because the climate was suitable for growing cereal crops

>>2174042
Because humans are 2 million years old

>>2174093
Adding onto this, there are six pristine civilizations, which civilized without the help from anyone else. They are the Olmecs (Aztec and Mayan precursors), Sumer, Harrapa (India), China, Norte Chico (Inca), and Egypt.

File: 51xwPegEzlL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (32KB, 335x499px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 335x499px

This worth a read?

>>2174042
It was in Babylonia because the Tigris and Euphrates would flood every year and give them enough food to sustain a large population. The Egyptians were in a similar situation.

File: 1483373260027.png (160KB, 731x645px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 731x645px

all evidence points to definitely yes, hominids originated in africa. as unquestionable as the shape of the earth.

the first civs spawning in the middle east could have been random, more than likely it was due to evolutionary/technological factors involving cro-magnon and the descendants of cro-magnon. not even racist in any traditional way, just realistic when looking at the world. cro-mangon developed in the middle east, and with the exception of sub-saharan africa, australia and some random islands managed to displace/absorb all pre-existing populations of hominid, likely due to advantages in technology and/or society, thinking etc. descendants of cro-magnon (which include native americans discounting australasian populations who were outcompeted/absorbed) are the only branch of sapien to autonomously develop civilization in the way that we define it.

people who use this evidence for racial superiority claims are silly, though. it's not as if sub-saharan africans or australasians stopped evolving. intelligence is a huge factor in your ability to reproduce when you're a human no matter where you are. people focus too much on environmental/subsistence challenges and not enough on sexual behavior and society. no matter what, intelligence is a strong selective factor. maybe they just don't give a shit about our meticulous crap?

>>2175894
egypt, sumer and indus valley civs developing independently is highly questionable, they share a lot of traits and it's highly probable that egypt and indus spawned from ideas out of sumeria. I'd say particularly with egypt I'd cut my dick off if they'd have formed without sumer existing first. the same applies to olmec civilization in the americas. yellow river culture seems to have been independent, though.

>>2175933

How do you explain the large differences between Egyptian and Sumerian languages?

>>2175933
olmec in regards to inca*, worded that poorly.

>>2174173
>>2174140
Literally 19th century theory, dipshit.

>>2174042
There are 5 genetically-distinct groups of humans (in the sense that they're genetically different enough from each other to justify being categorically different). 4 of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. The 5th is "everyone else."

The entire fossil record also supports the "out of Africa" theory.

We evolved from frugivores into highly-specialized pursuit predators on the Savannah, relying on endurance to run prey down. As our species spread out into the world, climate (and thus agriculture) was the primary determinant on where "civilization" sprung up. Mostly we were nomads, and when you don't have a particular connection to a piece of land (as agriculture will obviously give you) you tend to not set up shop there, especially when your entire lifestyle revolves around following herds and wintering in places you won't die.

File: stab.jpg (20KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 236x236px

>>2174042
Humans roamed the world as hunter gatherers for tens of thousands of years before they had the political, economic, and cultural incentives to set up permanent agricultural camps.

>>2175941
that's the best argument egypt has for it's independence, but it's pretty much impossible geographically and sequentially for sumerian civilization to have not influenced the nile valley before the rise of egypt. literally nobody knows, my assumption due to the spread of cunieform-based languages throughout africa and the mediterranean is that egypt had some scribes do some special snowflake shit sortof like what korea did. that's obviously speculation, though.

File: f40bf8746709233cfaa44de1848f49ea.jpg (46KB, 325x603px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 325x603px

>>2175953

I don't think there's any connection language wise. What is interesting to note is that the phonetic cuneiform language (they had to have different symbols for literally every little sound) was not a big influence on languages today, while the hieroglyphic Egyptian language has had big impacts on the alphabet that we use today.

File: BSBA360204530L.jpg (54KB, 477x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 477x600px

>>2175969

>>2174626
The land bridge was a thing, but some studies a couple years back also found some artifacts in the Americas dated to before the glaciers melted enough for humans to move into North America. Current theories are that a previous group to the land bridge one made their way down the pacific coast in small boats, island-hopping style.

>>2175995
from the pacific or from the northern polar circle?

File: fc.jpg (82KB, 673x440px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 673x440px

>>2175969
actually now that I'm thinking about this, early cuneiform and egyptian written language made use of logography and are oriented the same. that could be convergent, as logography was also used in yrv and the americas, but when it comes down to it it's geography and time.

1000-2000 years. this distance, this geography. there was certainly movement and communication from sumer into egypt during this time.

>>2176002
not him but the americas were peopled distinctly at least four times:

first by australasians who probably just walked there just like papua new guinea and aussieland. they were all entirely absorbed/outcompeted by later peoples.

second by "native americans", 99%< of the geneology of the americas upon european contact, big game hunters with atlatls and shit, came from the direction of the bering straight but nobody knows for sure how.

third by inuits, ice-eating shitstains from ruskoland who choose to live a life of terror in a frozen wasteland sometime around 3k years ago

fourth by polynesians, showing up late in the game around/after european contact and spreading some random genetics and bits of culture along a few of coastal settlements in central and south america.

>>2176002
The pacific. Don't quote me on this, though, I'm just recalling what I saw in a documentary on the Clovis culture a couple years ago.

>>2176012

I'm no expert, but wasn't "early cuneiform" not really a written language, and more of just pictures to describe livestock numbers?

File: sumer.gif (15KB, 589x468px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 589x468px

>>2176041
the earliest cuneiform was a mixture of pictographic and logographic concepts that definitely shared information about more than livestock, though I would consider a livestock recording system a language. I think more-so of early yrv written languages when I think of a pictographic language meant for demonstrating basic information as opposed to communicating complex abstract ideas.

another extremely interesting thing to consider is how sumerian civilizations are situated relative to the coastline chronologically, and what is underneath the water in the persian gulf. the first steps of civilizations are more than likely under a layer of earth and water, and possibly more concrete answers to this linguistic debate. I really hope to see what's under there within my lifetime.

File: bronze age water levels.jpg (80KB, 672x372px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 672x372px

here's a map that's more clear about the information I'm trying to convey about water levels.

>>2174042
Yes, and no.

Caucasoids are believed to be the result of bands of hunter-gatherers who ventured into Europe, the Middle East, and parts of India. They did.... something with the Neanderthals; either we fucked them out of the gene pool, or we killed them.

Mongoloids are bands of hunter-gatherers that migrated to East Asia and developed narrow eyes for dealing with blizzardy winds going into their eyes. They also have a layer of fat in their skin to deal with colder climates.

Negroids stayed behind - bottom line, homo sapiens are believed to have migrated (in some capacity) from Africa.

The first known civilizations in the Middle East are there because the land was fertile, and plants could be easily cultivated and leading to bigger harvests. More food can attribute to a bigger population, and then you got a city-state on your hands.

>>2174042
Those that had any drive left. Those that stayed on the continent were berefet of the right stuff for such endeavours. That's why the second you get out of africa there are progressively more societies appearing. The urge to explore and or no build something new for yourself and leave your father's land inherently correlates with expansion and migration outwards.
Stagnation and mediocrity are naturally more likely to occur in africa. That said, it's been ages, they need to start stepping up a bit more.

File: no_thanks.jpg (320KB, 621x621px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 621x621px

>>2174111

>>2174042
>why are the first known civilizations in the Middle East
massive river valleys next to volcanic mountain ranges
soot washes off the peaks into hilly flanks making fertile land that can be settled on and easily maintained. trade allows other people to settle in less fertile lands with other valuable resources. when they reach this level of organization they can settle the even more fertile river valleys because they have the resources and organization to irrigate them

>>2176133
>Forgetting the Bantu and Nilotic migrations

Retard alert

File: here_is_your__you_.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>2176002
The settlement pattern (based on the age of the sites) still goes north-south, just down the coast.

We know they had boats because there are multiple sites on islands off the west coast.

So, with the DNA evidence, dates of sites in North and South America, and that tidbit about boats, we can conclude that (probably) fisherman gradually settled down the coast from Beringia. The key thing here would be sites in the Bering Strait but it's not feasible to look for them, not even getting into whether anything would remain after millennia of stormy ass seas churning the water overtop of any such theoretical sites.

The idea of some kind of mass exodus (either from Africa or across Beringia) is the biggest misconception we run into with this stuff. Realistically these people spent generations living in the areas we regard as "transitional," just doing their thing, and gradually moving in the directions that they did.

>>2176024
>first by australasians who probably just walked there just like papua new guinea and aussieland. they were all entirely absorbed/outcompeted by later peoples.
No. Pic related.

>fourth by polynesians, showing up late in the game around/after european contact and spreading some random genetics and bits of culture along a few of coastal settlements in central and south america.
There are a few finds that have forced archaeologists to throw some conjecture out there about possible Polynesian contact with South America, there's nothing even remotely as concrete as you're implying here.

>>2174173
>Current similarity of all humans was reached after European colonisation, its not obvious about previous epoch.

lol.

>>2176304
your information is outdated, retard.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes

read a fucking book that was printed after the 1990s before you hit me with your holier-than-thou stupid-ass nonsense.

I had a lecturer for black history month at my high school a few years back. He said, among other things, that the first agricultural civilizations were in Africa. I raised my hand at the end of the presentation when he took questions, and asked him why then the vast majority of current academia supports the first human civilizations being in the Middle East. He simply said "I do not accept that theory" and laughed, then all the black kids started clapping.

I have a stupid question that I've always wondered about. Sub-saharan hair is pretty different from every other groups' hair, even primates' hair. How did it come to be? Did it appear post emigration out of Africa, thus explaining why it skipped all other groups?

File: 1403201376877.jpg (123KB, 1067x653px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1067x653px

>>2176747
>http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/
>the researchers think that they all share a common ancestor that lived tens of thousands of years ago in Asia but that doesn’t otherwise persist today.
>One branch of this family tree moved north to Siberia, while the other spread south to New Guinea and Australia. The northern branch likely migrated across the land bridge in a separate surge from the Eurasian founders.
A possible separate migration wave via Eurasia sharing a common ancestor with Aboriginal Australians doesn't mean "Australians" literally colonized the Americas like you said, you colossal retard.

>http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes
>Skeptics say that genetic evidence from modern human populations is not enough to prove ancient contact. The genetic clock is often uncertain, says anthropologist Carl Lipo of California State University, Long Beach. “We need ancient DNA from skeletal evidence—not modern evidence—to resolve this question.”
Like I said, there's nothing at all concrete about connections between Pre-Columbian South America and Polynesia. There are also several alternate explanations to what you're putting forth as fact.

To be clear, I literally have a degree in this, work in this field in this specific topic, and you're a retard.

>>2176757
>and all the black kids started clapping
>things that didn't happen

>>2176807
>mom why aren't the black kids all super smart pillars of virtue like in my nickelodeon movies

>>2176807
they clap for anything in america

File: f6d.gif (867KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 480x336px

>>2176821
>>2176819

>>2174042

when these threads come up can never tell if some /pol/tard is so retarded hes seriously asking the question or purpusefully trolling, but then again is there realy a difference

File: so_you_call_it_a_'road'.png (826KB, 1024x646px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 1024x646px

>>2174042
One of the oddities of the blank period between the spread of man and development of civilization, is that, in the grand scheme of things, the latter kind of happened everywhere at once. Depending on who you go by, mankind was running about with tools, primitive agriculture, fire, and sometimes even primitive metallurgy, pretty much every ingredient you needed for civilization, for between ~30,000 and ~100,000 years, all before anyone got around to building a city. Then, suddenly, in that last 5-10K years, you get cities all over on both sides of the planet in short order.

(This is among the oddities of prehistory that triggers the ancient aliens folks, obviously.)

Most blame climate change, citing that it was just too cold, but that wasn't true of all the regions where man was located during that time.

It's just as likely that civilization isn't an inevitable "development stage". That, much like language, or nearly any technological advancement, it happens rarely, and only if all the circumstances align in just right way in just the right place, *but* when it does happen, it spreads everywhere quite quickly. It's quite easy to imagine that any far traveling member of a primitive tribe seeing a city, just once, without knowing any of the nuances as to how it came to be, could easily return home, describe it, and say, "Let's do that too!" Similarly, that upon hearing of such a tale second hand, some other, even more distant tribe might take up the same idea.

Thus, civilization may actually only be sourced in two or three places on planet, and simply spread by witness or word of mouth, disseminated enough times that each civilization still remains relatively culturally unique and seemingly unconnected, each replicated in chain by perhaps a single elaborate storyteller.

>>2176860
It's called bait, anon.

>>2174127
>all these places were convenient for monkeys,
But how many of them were convenient for great apes?

>>2176875

but its so repetitive

id bet 70% of all the posts are other /poltards cooperating and samefag

>>2176803
BTFO

>>2176901
There are a lot of basement dwellers that dedicate their lives to bait, yes. Some consider it their holy mission to "red pill" everyone on the internet. Thus bait, bait everywhere.

Plus, well, the mods here are pretty laxed (and, I suspect, sympathetic).

>>2174127
Every time I see a stormfag conflate monkeys with hominids I laugh inside and realize none of you fucks have ever picked up a biology textbook to save your lives.

Seriously, read a fucking book lmao you're only embarrassing yourself.

>>2176875
This whole board is nothing but the same shit bait threads day after day.

>>2176869
I think the most important context here is the evolutionairy (not in the genetic, but as competition between nomadic and agricultural). If the tribes next to you start occupying (and defending, as they can specialize people into well-fed soldiers) fertile lands in your neighbourhood, then your nomadic tribe will, in the long-run, be outclassed. This is also due to the fact that agricultural societies will usually be able to feed more people as technology develops.

Thus your nomadic tribe has two options: settle (and the technology should be there) or move to a place where there are no settlements. Thus as a result you will see many settlements in some areas at once, up until you reach climates which are less favorable for the agricultural technology of those days.

>>2176920
Yeah, whatever gets (You)'s I guess - even if I suspect most baiters never check their threads after posting them.

But the only way to fix it would involve draconian moderation, banning all talks of race, prehistory, religion, Germany, WW2, vikings, the American Civil War... yadda yadda. You wouldn't be left with much to talk about, and I suspect the board would move at a rate of all of three posts a week, while a thousand moderators blew their brains out.

>>2176803
I understand you're butthurt to the point of making up pure lies now. even if you have a degree in the "field", it's obviously outdated.

here have more sources, dumbass. I like your lack of counter-evidence, btw. if you think geneologists would risk their careers on making bold statements before there's a decade or so of prescedence and evidence, you prove you know nothing of the field.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150721134827.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/science/tracing-routes-to-america-through-ancient-dna.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3170959/Were-Aborigines-AMERICANS-Native-tribes-Amazon-closely-related-indigenous-Australians.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33612869
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150722-dna-first-american-history-anthropology-science/
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0722/Scientists-find-genetic-link-between-Native-Americans-and-Pacific-Islanders
https://dna-explained.com/2015/07/22/some-native-americans-had-oceanic-ancestors/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2014/10/ancient-polynesians-had-children-with-american-indians/
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-links-indigenous-brazilians-to-polynesians-1.12710

people like you who get proven wrong and then proceed to try and revise reality are one of the biggest problems with the fields of history and humanities, as well as this board.

grow up.

>>2174118
It's actually around 60,000 to 80,000 years, at least for non-Africans. The Khoisan, Pygmies, and proto-"Black" people from East Africa all separated from each other earlier. There were earlier populations who left Africa 100,000 years ago to what is currently now China, but they died out, never passing on their genes. They might as well be a subspecies.

>>2174114
Oh lord, it's a WE WUZ VEDDOID N SHIT poster. Care to back up why the oldest human fossils for both Homo sapiens, or earliest ancestor Homo habilis, and protohumans like Australopithecus are found in Africa?

>>2174140
It doesn't make sense right? A species called Homo heidelbergensis did the whole populating different continents thing like we did, and according to multilregional theory, we should have evolved everywhere at the same time. Only that's false, we evolved from the taller Heidelbergensis in Africa, the shorter ones evolved into Neanderthals, and whatever the hell they looked like in Asia evolved into Denisovans. Three different but closely related species.

>>2174173
Tigers and lions can't always have fertile children, the same apparently happened to humans and Neanderthals, to a slightly lesser extreme. Thanks to the Toba Catastrophe, humans are too inbred to even be separate subspecies.

>>2174792
Get out Oog, The Land of Topless Dark Women is a shitty name for Paleolithic Africa and you know it. Now stop time traveling.

>>2176928
Does nothing to explain dat gap though.

I mean, yes, obviously nearby tribes and nomads either get absorbed or killed, as we see in history over and over again, but this would happen less often for the more distant ones (although some may get in such dire straights that they opt to make the long emigration to the city and integrate.)

If the first cities were rare anomalies, and the more distant tribes were more apt to simply emulate the feat, that would at least explain why you get cities popping up at around the same time, despite the great distance between them, with little to no apparent cultural connection.

Granted, with the amount of information we have to work with from this period, it's nearly entirely speculation.

>>2174979
>if I don't mention it here, and you're unsure of some genus of Homo, it's probably some form of Erectus

If this means that Heidelbergensis is just a very advanced subspecies of Erectus, then Erectus was the most physically and racially diverse species of human on the planet. For fucks sake, "Meganthropus", which was really just Erectus, was gigantic, while "Georgicus" was really just an early Erectus subspecies that was tiny.

>>2175058
Ergaster is just the early African branch of Homo erectus. Nice try.

>>2176975
>>2176971
>>2176964
I know this is asking a lot, but can we stop with the topic of race?

Civilization cropped up in mesoamerica, with no apparent western influence, among a peoples who average IQ is on par with the African's. Thus, clearly, neither race nor average IQ has much of anything to do with it. It seems nearly all variants of humanity are capable of starting civilization, if the circumstances are just right.

More constructive to ask what those circumstances might be, and why, despite having all the ingredients for said, some groups failed to ever develop civilization, even when other members of the same race elsewhere did.

>>2175182
>million years

Try less than 60,000. A million years would be farther than the gap between Neanderthals and us.

>>2175946
>4 of them are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Okay, I've got Khoisan, Pygmy, Nilotics, and West/Central Africans. What about East Africans like Somalis and Ethiopians? Are they too mixed these days? Or did you include those? If that's the case, where do Nilotics fall under?

>>2176914

but the weird part is that they seem to believe in their own bait... iv been here some number of years now, and one quickly learns to recognise troll threads, but, even tho the form is the same, it almost seems sincere

thats the troubling part, that someone is baiting with bullshit is just normal, but that same someone actualy believes same bullshit is rather disconcerning

its almost as if, and you see this on a lot of boards, anons that got exposed to trolling long enough actualy bought it, integrated the logic as if its their actual belief and oppinion, and then reproduce it like automatons

as in, they are serious, they are for real, they are literaly that retarded

>>2176800
Some say it's to protect our scalps from intense UV radiation, others say it cools our scalps down faster and keeps the hair our of our eyes, and some people say it's to hold in as much moisture as possible.

I would say all sound good.

>>2177012
Like so many people, of every political background, mostly confirmation bias. They believe it because it fits their chosen worldview. They aren't even necessarily all unintelligent individuals, just prone to self-affirmation, intellectual masterbation, and aversion to self-critisism and analysis of their constructed reality.

...and like so many extremists, they occasionally have a point - which simply reinforces the whole cycle.

Such is the state of humanity. Learn to deal with it, I suppose.

>>2176996
...I wasn't talking about race in particular. I was talking about humanity as a whole. Hell, I don't even think race is a good classification for our species, but that's just my opinion.

>>2177030
May has quoted the wrong post in there somewhere. Suffice to say, that's what this bait thread was designed to do, and pleading to turn it into something more sensible is a futile effort on my part.

>>2177021
Right, but that doesn't explain the evolutionary distinction. Is it something the existing groups lost, for a lack of a better explanation, or something that was gained after or something else? What you're saying makes sense as to why it would happen in hot arid climates, right? But tens of thousands of years ago the african climate was much friendlier wasn't it? Wouldn't that suggest that it's something that came about later? It also seems more likely than every single other group shedding the curls and such. No?

>>2176942
Again, where's the skeletal evidence for the Polynesian connection? To my knowledge there are 4 or 5 different theories as to the contact, some of which are trying to account for the fact that it's entirely possible that nothing happened. And none of them call it a "settlement wave" as you are here.

Also, as to the common Eurasian ancestor to some Aboriginal Australians and Native peoples, while there's evidence of a separate migration (or at least a distinct culture from most of the Eurasian-descended groups), there isn't a reliable timeline and there are a lot of separate explanations for how those groups interacted.

>even if you have a degree in the field it's obviously outdated
Got a BA in Anthropology with a focus on Archaeology in 2014, did field schools in Belize and Chile, and now work as an Archaeologist for the federal government in the NorthWest.

The fact that you seem to see all these people throwing up possible theories and heavily hedging their words at the same time is because of how heavily interpretive Archaeology is, particularly with regards to prehistory. None of the studies or papers you're throwing up as fact would declare their cases as strongly as you're stating then here, and all-in-all the human settlement of the Americas is extremely murky outside of a few key points. The key ones being that genetics and settlements account for 2 distinct periods where people crossed Beringia, before the glaciers receded in Canada and after. There's no way to know how the Eurasian cultures that did cross interacted with each other, or what order they came across without skeletal evidence, of which there is a dearth.

You're bit about there being 4 distinct migration waves is overstated with the blithe confidence of someone who doesn't know nearly as much a they think they do. Telling me to "grow up" is cute since you're the one treating cautious speculation as hard facts.

>>2177041
It was, but that would stop it from being hot most of the time. For the people who left Africa and weren't in similar climates like the people back at home, I would guess that afro-textured hair wasn't too useful anymore on a genetic, for whatever reason.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-textured_hair#Evolution

Unfortunately, there is nothing about why it vanished in most of the world.

>>2177052
*that wouldn't

Christ I need some sleep.

>>2174042
There were several sub-saharan African civilizations that cropped up around the same time as first ones in the middle east (+/-1500 years) . Most were small and didn't last very long, but there were walled enclaves and farms involved and some demonstrated some aspects of development more advanced than those in North Africa or the Middle East at the time (such as iron working, from 3000 to 2500 BCE in Gbabiri, and forge sites like Ôboui and Gbatoro.)

There's various reasons that the climate and geography wasn't as advantageous in Sub-saharan Africa, and the Nubian and Egyptian kingdoms had sufficient reach to absorb and/or discourage most of those from northern central Africa (with some evidence that their influence extended much further south, depending on the period).

>>2175904
It was okay, the section focusing on myths seemed interesting.

Its funny how she goes through thr motions where it would be possible for genetic variation among populations to exist only to turn on it later vehemetly and claim that african americans problems are entirely sociological

>>2177046
So what exactly IS the current thinking on the clovis stuff anyways? I've lived in the PNW my whole life and I've heard bits and pieces every now and then, but I'd like to hear from a pro.

Not him btw

>>2176984
>then Erectus was the most physically and racially diverse species of human on the planet
Yup! I mean the differences you see in modern populations outside Africa today has come about in less than 100ky, Erectus was about for more than a million. See for example H. Florensis, tiny ass niggas from SEA, compared to meganthropus that you mentioned

the fuck r u talking plebs, we're all from todays france, vietnam and indonesia

>>2177046
your arguments from authority don't impress me and reflect your lack of understanding of logical reasoning. if you had a good argument, you wouldn't have to talk about your credentials(that happen to predate the emergence of genetic evidence of australasian and polynesian peoples in america, where most research seems to have been done within the last 2-3 years).

the fact is, you came in talking big and hard, and got smacked in the face with overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your claims and now your huff and puffing logically fallacious arguments. "I'm right you're wrong because my degree" not an argument. weak.

genetic evidence is strong stuff. furthermore, look up the fuegians and pericues. being so knowledgeable of chile you should already know about them. educate yourself instead of talk about how educated you are.

>>2177168
>So what exactly IS the current thinking on the clovis stuff anyways?

In what sense? Who were they? The DNA links between the skeletal remains of Clovis (the only one we've found difinitively at least, in Montana) and skeletal remains of Eurasian peoples as well as modern American Indian populations is all very strongly-supported.

The technological links between Clovis tools and Siberian tools that for the timeline are a little more complicated as the Siberian stuff tends toward microblades rather than the big leaf-like points we see in Clovis sites (I have some theories about this as the Siberians also use big leaf-blades, just far more rarely).

The long and short of it is that Clovis is realistically the result of thousands of years and multiple cultures coming across Beringia, down the western coast of the Americas, then heading inland. The age and distribution of Clovis sites doesn't really line up with them being the first people coming into the Americas.

I personally feel that Clovis was probably the first truly homegrown American culture, in that it developed once the various Eurasian settler cultures started to truly adapt to North America.

Oh also people that try to use the Beringia hypothesis to minimize American Indian claims to being "from" America are retarded. They've been here WAY the fuck longer than any of our particular ancestors were posted up in ANY given part of the old world. The whole Kennewick Man controversy still pisses me off and seriously damaged and (further) politicized any and all future study of actual human remains discovered in North America.

Do you have specific questions?

>>2177440
Oh, Christ.

The Polynesian thing, again, is weak, and is still being hotly-debated in academic circles. That's not to say that there aren't some compelling links between Latin America and Polynesia. Just that those links don't constitute a wave of settlement as you've decided they do.

But you've clearly got it all solved so get that paper written, homie!

The fact that Aboriginal Australians and some American peoples have common ancestors proves nothing except that the peoples who settled the Americas from Eurasia were not as homogenous as once thought. The idea that they constitute a "first wave" of settlers is a bit of a leap.

>>2177510
I thought the existence of sweet potatoes in Polynesia pretty much necessitates there having been some contact and trade with South America? Of course that doesn't mean they settled there but it seems like a ridiculous journey to make just to grab a few potatoes and then turn around and go home.

>>2177558
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440307000805

Not saying this is right, just saying that there are alternate possibilities to pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and South Americans and weirder things have happened.

There's also evidence that two strains of Sweet Potato were introduced in Polynesia, pre- and post- European contact. My entire point is that the theoretical (VERY recent) point of contact between these cultures should probably show more prominence in the genealogical record than it actually does IF there was a settlement wave one way or the other, or indeed trade between those cultures. It's entirely possible that the DNA admixture observed is the result of post-European contact.

And there's no way to know for sure without some actual contemporary remains/artifacts to take samples of.

Personally I love the idea of Polynesians and South American peoples trading. That's cool as fuck and really captures the imagination. But to be scientific you also have to be skeptical, and that's where I find myself landing on this particular question.

>>2177586
Yeah I think drifting seed pods or whatever has to be seriously considered, just because the idea of making that kind of journey and not leaving any genetic or archaeological evidence seems very unusual.

Seems like Polynesian people mostly intended to settle new lands when they made great sea voyages (New Zealand for example). Not sure if that's actually correct but the idea of sailing across the Pacific just to hopefully find some people to trade with and then go home doesn't seem tenable.

>>2177656
Also my thinking. Afaik South American civilizations didn't ever show any kind of interest in the sort of long-distance, large-scale seafaring needed to get to Polynesia, and the Polynesians were more about mass migrations and settling than anything. That's a LONG fucking way to go (not that they were incapable, obviously). So yeah, assuming they did, large-scale back-and-forth trade seems unlikely.

Also the timeline is pretty fucky as far as how far east the Polynesians had settled vs when the sweet potato has been dated to reaching Polynesia. Like, off by centuries according to what we know currently.

My whole point is that there are so many pieces missing from that fucking puzzle that it's laughable to say anything with any kind of certainty.

>>2177747
Also pretty laughable that anon's sources re:Polynesia continually go out of their way to point out how "unlikely" any preColumbian trade between Polynesians and South Americans is, and that the admixture seen could likely be due to the 19th century slave trade. The same source also points out that individuals of the same haplotype show up as far away as Madagascar, so the Polynesian hypothesis is, again, a leap.

Also the ones making stronger claima fail to address the obvious problem of Easter Island being settled ~500 years after the sweet potato showed up in Polynesia. And that the supposed contact between Polynesians and Chileans that resulted in admixture was hundreds of years after that.

>>2174042
>ctrl+f
>grass
>0 results

Niggas, 'civilization' started in the Near East/Mesopotamia because that's where the wild grasses that were (over time) domesticated in to the first cereal grains (Einkorn or Emmer, for example) come from in the first place. They could be collected and stored, and replanted. Selective breeding resulted in later domesticated versions of wheat (and also spelt and barley). Suddenly, you didn't have to roam over a large area just not to starve to death. You could replant wheat and store it over winter, making gruel or flat bread as a staple of your diet, augmented with wild game, keeping some goats or sheep, and collecting what wild veggies and fruits you could find. But you had to store it, so you needed to build permanent structures, and you also had to guard it from others.

Africa's first domesticated grain of 'choice' was millet, but this was not domesticated until a later time (in west Africa), and to some extent it's a more finicky grain than wheat.

>>2174143
Africa is a region not an organism, numb nuts.

>>2176869
>One of the oddities of the blank period between the spread of man and development of civilization, is that, in the grand scheme of things, the latter kind of happened everywhere at once. Depending on who you go by, mankind was running about with tools, primitive agriculture, fire, and sometimes even primitive metallurgy, pretty much every ingredient you needed for civilization, for between ~30,000 and ~100,000 years, all before anyone got around to building a city. Then, suddenly, in that last 5-10K years, you get cities all over on both sides of the planet in short order.
This oddity is explained by being aware of how we define civs/citys. We define them only from the evidence that survived, anything earlier may have eroded. This gives the illusion of that sudden spark in 5-10k. Climate.

>>2177814
Haitians and Zimbabweans were known to eat seeds given to them, blacks are impulsive numbskulls they cant do agriculture because their brain is programmed to always find food immediately so waiting for food via agriculture is a no no.

>>2175941
Egyptians are descended from remains of the "green Sahara" period. The Nile was a convenient and abundant place to re-locate. Obvious proximity to Mesopotamia, and perhaps some co-mingling, explain the rest. That is, a 'soft' diffusion spreading of technology or agriculture, etc. Neither early population was in a position to directly out-compete the other or act as hegemon or anything though. Not yet.

>>2174626
Ice and land bridges or island hopping (of which there are many now under the sea) so take your pick

>>2176002
Northern Pacific.

>>2176024
> inuits, ice-eating shitstains from ruskoland who choose to live a life of terror in a frozen wasteland sometime around 3k years ago
Rude.

The first wave were probably not 'australasians' (a modern geographic term), but some kind of paleo/proto-'Asians' (we really do not know for sure -- what little evidence there is seems to suggest they were a distinct group with no relatives today), and in relatively small numbers. They came right before the 'main' wave of people who spawned the majority of today's native Americans. By the way, even these groups did not come in one single wave, but several, perhaps overlapping. Many groups of the PNW and far northwest of Canada (non-Inuit) are relative late-comers, who speak languages distantly related to current Siberian reindeer herders and such.

Any Polynesian settlement on the mainland of south America, which is barely attested by the way, was most likely very small and very late (at best, we're talking like a century or two before the Spanish showed up). I wouldn't be surprised if a few boatloads of Polynesian settler ships got blown on to the coast, but there is almost no concrete proof. Sweet potatoes and chickens are about it, and that's not even a smoking gun.

>>2177863
>>>/pol/

>>2174626
We evolved just like every where else

>>2175995
The "ice-free corridor" (basically in what is Yukon/BC) is itself just a theory. Seems likely, but is not actually proven.

File: photo.jpg (15KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x250px

>>2174096
No

>>2174093
Humans had moved out of Africa and spread all over the world long before the first civilizations. The reason for civilization in the fertile crescent was purely because the random selection of nomadic humans living there were lucky enough to have rivers on both sides and simultaneously discover agriculture. This then spread outwards.

>>2178391
They were only 'lucky enough to discover agriculture' because they also happened to live around naturally occurring grasses that had a large enough germ that could be eaten.

>>2176072

Thank You for all your posts ITT. Loved reading them.

File: 1479412341705.jpg (27KB, 266x599px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 266x599px

When did this fucking board lose all moderation. There are like 50+ blatant /pol/ shill posts in this thread and two threads about Hitler on the front page.

This is not up for debate retards, no matter how hard you shill for whatever fake beginning you wish happened. Humans evolved in Africa, we then left to the middle east and Asia. Eventually we went to Europe and the Americas.

Get the fucking cheeto dust off your keyboards and ban the fucking storm niggers you limp dick retards.

>>2175969
>>2175983
it never ceases to amaze me that the symbols took so long to evolve from pictographic to pure abstract lines with the only purpose of identification

for the first two thousand years the language had to be drawn instead of just jotted

annoying af
imagine drawing a fish or a monkey for every fucking letter
and that retarded arrow, wtf

>>2174042
Google images brain size world map

>>2179441
Yea, it's a good thing literacy was like 1%, so only a literal handful of people ever learned to write, and this was their full-time job.

>>2179235
I think there was a 4-week or so golden era until /pol/ found this board.

>>2179887
I was here since day 1.

It was shit to begin with.

>Out of Africa

The remains of human ancestors and earliest humans have been found in Africa. Primates in Africa are also closest genetic relatives to humans. So humans almost certainly came from Africa.

>Why first civilizations in middle east

Combination of rivers, proper plant and animal species, and climate that all were good for agriculture and settlements.

Similar combination of circumstances applied in China, Indus Valley and Egypt which all arose at a similar time.

>>2176869
If your story was true, we would see civilisation gradually spreading from this single source, while in truth we see several centres from which civilisation radiates, with uncivilised, relatively simple cultures between. They probably developed independently.

>>2177440
>fuegians and pericues

What about them?

>>2179894
Fuck you, I've been here since day 1 and /his/ is awesome.

There's enough /pol/tards for you to pimp smack around with basic facts and evidence to your black heart's content, but there's not so many that they can gang up and shout down all the "smarts".

The same thing applies to Marxists. The moment that nail sticks out is the moment it gets hammered back into place.

thin skinned cunts whine about muh /pol/ this and muh /leftypol/ that, but in practice there's a weird equilibrium on /his/ because people would it be a place of lively discussion than a place where ideologues finger each other's vaginas while cryomg about people who disagree with them

>>2179991
His has been shit since nearly the beginning. Stop being in denial.

>>2179997
It's not denial, I like /his/ the way it is. I don't want it to be a place that is insulated from a particular way of thinking. If I wanted that I'd be on /pol/ or reddit

If you don't like it, here, I'll give you a hand

>>>/b/

>>2178391
>luck
>Not God
kys

>this is the level of education on /pol/

>>2179980
>They probably developed independently.
Doesn't explain how they all cropped up in roughly the same thousand year stretch, despite having the opportunity to arise for 30 to 100 thousand years before.

...And you rarely see primitive cultures nested between two large civilizations, save when they are particularly isolated geographically or operating as trade nomads between them.

>>2180043
If it was God, one would think the chosen people would be known as the founder of civilization, instead of the Mesopotamians, Sumeria, and the other dozen cities that were founded before Israel built so much as a mud hut.

But hey, maybe we just haven't found Enoch.